About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
schools of thought on how to deal with israel. mark perry is a foreign policy analyst who remains close contact with the hamas leadership. >> abu mazen has gambled very explicitly and said very explicitly that there will be no violence against israel and he will negotiate in good faith with israel. the problem is that hasn't gotten him anywhere. hamas has a totally different approach and their approach is resistant. they believe israel will only come to the table when they feel pain. >> warner: a bring number of palestinians see justification for that belief. last november a week of palestinian rocket fire from gaza and israeli air strikes led to an egyptian-brokered cease-fire between hamas and israel. as part of that, some israeli restrictions on gaza were eased. the year before, hamas secured the release of a thousand prisoners from israeli jails in return for handing over gilad shalit, the israeli soldier it kidnapped in 2006. >> it has sent a clear message to the palestinian people if you abduct soldiers the they will be released but if you sign agreements about w us about releasin
degree was running its own foreign policy. one of the big things we're looking to understand about ping's government over the next year or two is whether he can bring the pla under his control. he's already been head of the military commission which is really the most powerful role there. it took hu jintao a few years before he got named to that post. >> rose: david sanger thank you as always. >> thank you, charlie. >> we look at politics the republican and democratic party. the republican national committee comes in the way of political conference where republican leaders met to discuss the future of their party. report contained an endorsement of comprehensive immigration reform and extensive discussion of social issues. the gop has struggled to define itself since the loss in the 2012 presidential election. joining me to help me understand this from washington al lent from boomberg view and mark halperin from "time" magazine. i'm pleased to have both of them back on this program. i begin with this al. as you know i've been in rome watching the new pope be selected. so i've been ther
'll come back and talk more about that and what it meant fo american foreign policy going forward. we continue our discussion on this tenth anniversary of the iraqi war with the distinguished panel of people who observed and written about the war sinces beginning. from cambridge, glrngd john burns, the london bureau chief of the "new york times." in new york, michael gordon, chiefch military correspondent r the "new york times." fouad ajami, a senior fellow of the hoomp institution. dexter filkins of the "new yorker" we hope will be joining us shortly. i go back to michael gordon.ly tell me what the judgment of history will be about our participation in the iraqi war. >> i think too much attentionwa has been paid to the decision tc go to war and not enough on the management of the withdrawal from iraq and where we go from here with iraq. because the story of iraq is not over. and we shouldn't just put thisov chapter behind us and say we're done with it. there were opportunities to be engaged with iraq by the u.s. government on the level of common citizens. there's a tbalt for influenc
now by two upstarts. lapid and bennett, both of whom are not focused in the main on foreign policy and security issues but on social and economic ones so it's a paradox, in order to maintain his relevance as a foreign policy national security guy-- which is his strong suit-- the fact is he does need a better relationship with obama because obama holds the key on that front, certainly on iran. >> reporter: speaking of iran-- and i'll come back to that relationship-- is what the president saided in an interview with israeli television, will that comfort israelis? >> it certainly should comfort israelis. after all, the record suggests that the administration has worked very, very hard on the iranian challenge and the president has said that take my word, we're not interested in containing iran, we're interested in preventing iran from developing nuclear technology. i think it should assuage israelis who are concerned about this issue i wonder why-- and this seems to be part of the conversation in washington-- that israelis need an american president to show some deep emotional attachm
. and susan glasser, executive editor of "foreign policy" magazine. it seems as john kerry hop scotchs around the region, all he is encountering are rocks and hard places. am i right? >> yes, you are right about that. i mean, this is a region i think that actually has been crying out for a bit more u.s. engagement, but that doesn't mean that it's going to be easy. the secretary kerry clearly shows he's ready to be engaged but, you know, he's walking into a situation in iraq where the united states has already withdrawn its troops in afghanistan where we're in the process, and that means we are diminishing influence in both of those places. we still have interests there but diminishing influence. syria, a very, very hot conflict. the united states has been reluctant to get more involved, and then... and iran, of course, difficult negotiations with, you know, not necessarily any sign of progress. and then on top of all of that, secretary kerry has shown that he wants to take on the israeli-palestinian issue and see if he can make progress where others have not. >> ifill: what does his schedule,
time ago to martin and dick, now director of the foreign-policy at brookings institution. for coming in. very cordial between the two men. do you think real differences remain between them over iran? but there are inevitably some differences between israel, a small country in iran posing neighborhood, and the united states, which has more than 1000 nuclear weapons in its arsenal. iran is not about to attack the united states. having said that, the president has put out a timeline of a year. mr. netanyahu has not contradicted him. and i do not think he wanted to show any difference during this visit, for sure. he does not want any daylight to show between the president and prime minister. but nevertheless, i think he has said i think it twice publicly and that allows the negotiation to be tested. >> president obama stressed resolving it diplomatically and mr. netanyahu talk about israel have been the right to independently defend itself. you think that is not necessarily conflict between those two positions? necessarily. the president said israel has the right to defend itself. his respo
on foreign relations and author of "foreign policy begins at home." richard, thank you for joining me. although it seems to have been a successful trip for relations with israel has it done much to nudge the peace process forward? >> it's in some ways set the foundation or provided a context. i've been a diplomat before and there are times you can do peace plans, times situationes are right for specific proposals. this is not one of them. this was a trip to go over the head of the israeli government, to build a context of support. once that context exists then it makes it less date for the israeli government to dom to a negotiating table and put kids forward. the same logic applies to the palestinian side. this is a pre-negotiating trip. >> do you think he comes back with the stage set where he's prepared to invest his own political capital and get the peace process going? >> i think it's probably too oon to get that decision but great deal and turkey, was brought around with concerns about iran, the fear of syria. now you've had a rejew -- renewed strategic alignment between those tw
and director of the foreign policy program at the brookings institution in washington, d.c. and david makovsky is the director of the project on the middle east peace process at the washington institute for near east policy. welcome to both of you. martin, let me start with you. as the president goes to israel, what will he find in general terms in this new government? what do we know or not know? >> well, it's only a couple of days old. so it's a very hard to tell exactly what it's going to shape up to. what we have is right wing party with a shift within the likud further in the right in terms of its composition. we have a large center party, lapid, this new rising star. then to his left is tzipi livni who was the only candidate to campaign on the two-state solution. he only got 56. >> brown: somehow they all worked together or were supposed to work together. >> there's a special glue on the seats of israeli cabinet chairs which kind of keep them stuck there for a while at least. they have to respond to their constituency. that is the key point here. their constituents wants them to focus on
: joining me martin indyk, director of foreign policy brookings institution, also a former u.s. ambassador to israel. and itamar rabinovich served as israel ambassador to the united states. at the same time he was chief negotiator with the syrian government and president and founder of the israeli institute. i'm pleased to have both of them at this table, at this time, when the president is saying some very interesting things in israel. so welcome. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> rose: characterize this speech by the president. >> this speech was typical obama at his best, working his oratorical magic on a crowd that lapped it up. he spoke very convincingly about his commitment to israel's security and his understanding of their security dilemmas. and particularly underlined what he was going to prevent iran from getting nuclear weaponsment but then he went into a rif about peace and the necessity of peace and the possibility of peace, and why peace has to be just, even saying put yourself, you israelis put yourself in the shoes of the palestinians. and talked over the heads of the leadersh
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)